# [DESIGN] Re: verbing properties again

Brandon Gillespie (brandon@tombstone.sunrem.com)
Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:12:20 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, ThwartedEfforts wrote:
    > At 08:50 AM 7/26/96 PDT, Michael Moore <mike@mail.datasys.net> wrote:
    > >Adams, Charles wrote:
    > >With this kind of
    > >control, it becomes much easier to add things like user-defined data types
    > >to MOO.  It also provides a much easier way to simulate multiple-ownership
    > >of objects, properties, and verbs.
    >
    > But forcing all accesses to go through accessor methods is crazy.  You can't
    > design good programming practices into the system, people have to want to do
    > things a certain way.

    Uhh, Cold has strict encapsulation and has no problem with it, once you
    get used to programming modularily you would be amazed at how
    non-irritating it is, and how irritating non-modular programming is.  I
    agree in that you cannot force people to program a specific way, but you
    can make it easier to program in a standard beneficial way while making it
    harder to program in less desireable ways; as well as simply removing
    aspects which destroy good programming styles (i.e. modularity).  Removing
    the aspect does nothing to hinder the language, while it does help code
    being written in the language to be better.

    However, adding encapsulation to MOO at this point would be a bad move,
    as you say below, everything already assumes non-encapsulation.

    > In some cases, the certain way will be direct
    > property access everywhere.  In other cases, the certain way will be to go
    > through accessor methods.  Unfortunately, the most widely used core database
    > for MOO is not programmed in an OO fashion, so we have the problems we have
    > today.

    That is too bad.

    -Brandon